[quote by=IndicaWalrus link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1105079361,s=15 date=1105463613]Exactly.The basic point is that its his song, and Im sure Lennon wouldn't be bothered.[/quote]

No, that's not the point at all.

If Paul wants to use the Beatles' recording of Yesterday, that's fine as long as he indicates clearly that it IS the Beatles' recording.

But if he still wants to change the credits, I would be puzzled. Paul, after the big discussion about this credits thing several months back, publicly said it was a non-issue in the end and he's not fussed by it any longer. If he's changed his mind, then you've got to wonder about his perspective, and whether he has a firm grasp on reality!

But its not the Beatles.Its Paul Mccartney.It might have been recorded under the Beatle name, and the presumption that the creative input was split four ways, but it wasn't. The Beatle entity is sometimes taken to be an all material engulfing monster..but it doesn't work like that.Yeah, it was issued as the Beatles, but that was only because of the band attitude and the democratic nature they adopted.The reason for him not following up his idea on the credits has alot more to do with media, public attitude, and basically money.We, as fans, dont know the degree to the eagerness of his claim.

[quote by=IndicaWalrus link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1105079361,s=22 date=1105490819]But its not the Beatles.Its Paul Mccartney.It might have been recorded under the Beatle name, and the presumption that the creative input was split four ways, but it wasn't. The Beatle entity is sometimes taken to be an all material engulfing monster..but it doesn't work like that.Yeah, it was issued as the Beatles, but that was only because of the band attitude and the democratic nature they adopted.The reason for him not following up his idea on the credits has alot more to do with media, public attitude, and basically money.We, as fans, dont know the degree to the eagerness of his claim.[/quote]

Oh, my oath - it IS the Beatles. Certainly legally, which is why Paul has to get agreement from Ringo, and the estates of John and George. But apart from legally, the group AND George Martin AND the engineers AND the outside musicians would ALL have had input into the song. I'm sure that this is the aspect that p*sses many people off about Paul - he seems to want to deny the help and support and advice that he received from other people in the past. But one thing is VERY clear, Indica -YESTERDAY is not just Paul McCartney.

The sad thing about Paul these days is that he is very keen to be seen as Beatle Paul, while being close to denying the other three and the contributions they made. I feel that he may be regretting the many, many inconsequential songs he has written and performed since 1970. He may feel that indeed "the only thing (he) done was Yesterday", and that he has wasted his talents through laziness, and a casual approach to his music. As his working life nears its end, his regret may turn to bitterness - there are signs that it already is doing so.

I disagree with your statement. I feel Paul has to stick up for himself as many people would like to think of him as less talente then John, which he certainly is not. You can't blame the man for trying to defend his good name. People always say, "Oh it was John, he wrote the best songs. Well, Paul is just trying to prove that they were equal.All of the other Beatles always agreed that Yesterday was a solo effort, despite being released as a Beatles composition.

[quote by=Mairi link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1105079361,s=24 date=1105493562]I get the feeling you're not much of a McCartney fan Ydoll Gwen.

I disagree with your statement. I feel Paul has to stick up for himself as many people would like to think of him as less talente then John, which he certainly is not. You can't blame the man for trying to defend his good name. People always say, "Oh it was John, he wrote the best songs. Well, Paul is just trying to prove that they were equal.All of the other Beatles always agreed that Yesterday was a solo effort, despite being released as a Beatles composition. [/quote]

I think you are missing the point. Also, please spell my name correctly!

What I say has nothing to do with whether I'm a Paul fan or not. I'm trying to be objective about the situation.

Paul isn't trying to prove that "they (John and Paul) were equal" - he seems increasingly to be seeing himself as the "best" Beatle, certainly better than John. Have you read MANY YEARS FROM NOW? It's silly to see Paul trying to put percentages to the contributions he and John made to Lennon/McCartney songs. Percentages, my God! Further, notice how often Paul sees himself as contributing strongly to "John songs", but how little he seems to acknowledge John's contributions to "Paul songs".

Paul cannot claim any great shakes for his solo career. So he seems to be wanting to paint himself a stronger color in the Beatles than he has a right to. I can understand, but I don't approve.

Right.Firstly, Ill disagree to agree about the Yesterday disagreement.Now onto fresh debate I think the percentage element of Many Years From Now is slightly trivial, but it is because of the Lennon situation, the years of character manipulation from the media, which had driven him to such lengths.I think its ridiculous, how Lennon gets attributed as being the greater muscian..I mean, its all taste, but you cant deny Paul Mccartney hasn't earned his piece of being one of the cultural Revolutionist's of the 60's.Its total tosh that he doesn't acknowledge Lennon towards his songs. The Anthology series makes a huge deal out of Hey Jude, and Paul sings John's praises about leaving the line "The Movement you need is on your shoulder" ..among others.The fact is, if Lennon had first went to the London Avante Garde Happenings and created the tape loop creations, and the Peppers Idea...he would get alot more public appreciation than Paul did. Lennon's character beams with been different, thats why he is always credited..and Mccartney always tagged..the commercial* one.Im not knocking Lennon, but..hey Mccartney not..a strong colour in the Beatles?He was one of the god damn Brushes!

Re the "avante garde". Paul would impress folk much more if he had actually did some avante garde stuff, instead of just hanging out with the trendies in mid-6os London. All we have heard is a little burst of Carnival of Light, which sounded not so great (backing that up is that we have not heard the whole piece: if it was halfway good, Paul would have released it by now.) We also have some Paul loops on Tomorrow Never Knows. On the other hand, John went and did it. Listen to his ground-breaking work (Rain, Tomorrow Never Knows, Walrus, Revolution 9, ...)

Re the Hey Jude lyrics story. What has always fascinated me about this oft-told tale is that Paul is letting us know that his lyric was pretty good after all. "Shucks, I didn't know how good that lyric was - John opened my eyes." Paul could tell better stories: like how John rescued the lyrics of Drive My Car. Paul had written originally "Baby you can wear my ring ..." Like how Paul had written in I Saw Her Standing There " ... she was just 17, never been a beauty queen ...", and John had said, in essence, no that sucks, and suggested instead the wonderful sexual leer " ... she was just 17 ... you know what I mean ..."

I have great admiration for Paul, but I am also a realist. He was NOT the Beatles, AND NEITHER WAS George or Ringo or John. But I will say this: it is John's ground breaking contributions (both to early and mid-period Beatles) that led to the awesome reputation of the group. In support, consider how good A Hard Day's Night album is: almost totally John's work. Compare Rain and P'back Writer. Compare Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane. Compare Walrus and Hello Goodbye.

Paul may have been one of the goddamn brushes - but John was the artist!

Carnival of Light and the Mccartney vsists to Avant Garde London were miles apart.Im talking about 65, in reference to Paul. It wasn't just messing around with fashionable mates..ok, John Dunbar, Miles etc.. but something WAS happening.If you put it like that, Lennon could be attributed just the same title, when he got in with Yoko Ono in the late sixites, and with her underground art movement...Early period..yeah Lennon Dominates..but he should, mid period..Mccartneys works are great..and late period? Mccartney flourishes, yes..towards the end..its horribly commercial..but you cant say Lennon was the artists..what complete rubbish.

Paul cannot claim any great shakes for his solo career. So he seems to be wanting to paint himself a stronger color in the Beatles than he has a right to. I can understand, but I don't approve.[/quote]

Sorry, but your going to have to explain your view as to why Pauls solo career was so mediocre in your opinion. I'd be interested in your take.

I have great admiration for Paul, but I am also a realist. He was NOT the Beatles, AND NEITHER WAS George or Ringo or John.

True. It was a joint effort for sure.

Quote

But I will say this: it is John's ground breaking contributions (both to early and mid-period Beatles) that led to the awesome reputation of the group. In support, consider how good A Hard Day's Night album is: almost totally John's work.

Yes, it does appear that John had a greater impact during the 63' to 65' era, but a lot of loyalists consider that era to be the Beatles boy band period so i'm not getting your point. Paul had greater contributionslater with Sgt. Peppers and Abbey Road and many consider that to be the defining moment of the Beatles. It works both ways.

Quote

Compare Rain and P'back Writer.

ok, I prefer 'Paperback Writer'

Quote

Compare Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane.

ok, I understand how many people will choose SF's, but I personally like 'Penny Lane' better.

Quote

Compare Walrus and Hello Goodbye.

Yeah, i'll take 'Walrus' on this one, but you see how people tastes differ.

Quote

Paul may have been one of the goddamn brushes - but John was the artist!

[quote by=Ydoll_Gwyn link=Blah.pl?b=mccartney,m=1105079361,s=27 date=1105497492]I'll make a few points in reply, Indica.

Re the Hey Jude lyrics story. What has always fascinated me about this oft-told tale is that Paul is letting us know that his lyric was pretty good after all. "Shucks, I didn't know how good that lyric was - John opened my eyes." Paul could tell better stories: like how John rescued the lyrics of Drive My Car. Paul had written originally "Baby you can wear my ring ..." Like how Paul had written in I Saw Her Standing There " ... she was just 17, never been a beauty queen ...", and John had said, in essence, no that sucks, and suggested instead the wonderful sexual leer " ... she was just 17 ... you know what I mean ..."[/quote]

And you doubt that Paul did the same for John in many cases? Neither of them were as outstanding solo as they were together. And I don't think Paul is telling the story to give himself a boost. I think he's telling in response to people asking him about how Hey Jude came to be. But then he can't say anything positive about himself without ridicule can he? I still don't get that.

Maybe not the actual 'defining' moments, but perhaps their most recognized and critically acclaimed work. I apologize for my choice of words.

Quote

Mr TKITNA, you and I will not get along.

Sure we will. Why shouldnt we? I dont feel as though we're arguing. Strickly a debate.

Quote

The Beatles were not a boy band, I can assure you of that.

Another bad choice of words on my part. They were not a boys band in the respect that they actually played their own instruments and had talent enough to write and create music. A 'POP' band would be a better definition during their early years.

Quote

Abbey is too late in their career to be a defining moment. Good tho parts were, Abbey is too patchy in any case.

I think we're in agreeance about the defining moment aspect and i'm also in agreeance with you about the patchy segments of the album as a whole. My point is that Abbey Road was the slickest Beatle album ever produced and was important as a fitting end to the band. John didnt have much input in this album as he was fedup, in love, and just plain lazy. Paul rallied the troops for one last trip and i'm glad he did. For the band to go out with 'Let It Be' would have been a crime. They were better then that and 'Abbey Road' allows the world to see it.

Quote

Pepper had a big Paul push, but that was only in the emphemeral stuff. But John's Pepper music is better than Paul's, as far as I'm concerned.

To each his own about the John and Paul thing. I'm a 'Revolver' man myself.

Quote

Why do Paul's fans hate any attempt to have a serious discussion about him, that touches any criticism?

I'm a huge Paul fan as well as a John fan, George fan, Ringo fan, ect,,,and i'll be the first to admit that Paul is egotistical, a fairly bad lyricist, a glory hog, a shrewd business person, will do anything for the quick buck, and he has definately put out some crappers along with his excellent stuff. How was that?

I guess 'Paul' fans just want to assure the 'John' fans that he wasnt perfect either, but why should I go and list his negative aspects that are already known by everybody anyways? Its not about that. I guess since Johns death, Pauls been the only one here to answer for everything. Maybe he deserves a break once in awhile too.

Sorry about that. Maria was a member that used to belong here that had very similiar ideas to your own as well as writing styles. I liked Maria, but she left and hasent returned yet. I thought you may have been her under a different alias. I wont make the comparison again.